About your Search

20130107
20130115
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)
't think we should change the talking point -- clarify the talking points that susan rice leading up to the al-qaeda. i've told three stories. director of national intelligence said they changed the talking point. f.b.i. said no, it might have been us. because of ongoing criminal investigation. the final answer believes the c.i.a. may have changed the talking point deleting references to al-qaeda. i'm not going to confirm john brennan or anyone else until the administration shares information with the congress about who deleted references to al-qaeda three weeks before the election. i think it was purposefully done and i want to know who did it before we move forward. >> you're committed to holding the nomination up? >> yeah. i don't want to. but i'm not going to let the administration get away from having to be held accountable. the state department, you will hear from hillary clinton. who did change the talking points and take al-qaeda out? what did the president do in seven hours? they are making two movies about the strong leadership and the bin laden raid. this administration le
, chuck hagel. where does mccain come down on this? very much against susan rice. i find it hard to believe mccain's going to be against chuck hagel, given the kind of bonds that they have. >> chuck hagel was against john mccain in 2008. >> i'm not saying they weren't against each other on policy matters. we're talking about a confirmation here. >> didn't he endorse barack obama? >> i think he spoke favorably of him. >> i don't think he endorsed him. >> unofficial surrogate. >> again, this is a confirmation hearing where the senate dgives deference to the president. mcconnell, around this "politico" story with quotes from mcconnell's farewell speech to hagel where he points out that hagel saved mcconnell's brother in vietnam, so we're not really sure. and singing his praises. >> that's only in the movie version. >> it's going to be hard for mcconnell to oppose him vocally here. >> that kind of sums everything up because if you watched yesterday's "meet the press," i mean, all this talk last week about the president's personality being difficult and unapproachable and isolated, ex
women. we had two supreme court picks that were women. the optics. the susan rice debacle i guess you could call it tainted everything that came after that. i think it tainted poor john kerry's nomination because people were an assuming he was the second choice. i think the whole susan rice spectacle is hanging over and looming over all the other picks. >> you make good points though, joy. so david, the white house's response to all this. all these accusations that they're not putting in a diverse group of people. how's that going? >> well alex, what joy just said, there's only a few picks. that's what jay carnie the white house spokesman said the other day. he also ticked through some of the women who are still running departments and going to stay on in their jobs. just to push back a little bit, there have been four picks now if you count the treasury secretary announced this week in jack lew. it's likely we'll hear next week that inside the white house to replace jack lew chief of staff is probably dennis mcdonagh. not only did the first four picks that the president pick were men
in the nomination over secretary hagel as opposed to susan rice. i think steve would agree to this, one of the things that should be done in the hearings for the nomination is give much more clarity about where this administration is going. it is all fine and good to talk about the limits of power. everybody should understand our limits to power. that can be an excuse for not exercising power. i think that debate can be useful when put on the table when talking about senator hagel. >> hear the table, gary schmitt, the co-director for the -- and steve clemons the editor at large @ "the atlantic." we will get your comments in just a moment. i want to point out a " that is getting a lot of attention. i mentioned david miller who has a piece in this morning in "the washington news." he says this -- who would like to comment on that? i think the suggestion that senator hagel is anti- semetic, i have no idea. what is troubling about is not necessarily the jewish lobby -- the most troubling part is the fact that he goes on to say that's "i am a u.s. senator, i am not a senator from israel." t
of state. the president is considering a new job for ambassador to the united nations susan rice. may become the next national security advisor if all the appointments are confirmed. we will have carried out an almost total revamping of his national security team. >> confident that judge will be an outstanding secretary of defense and brennan will be an outstanding director of the central intelligence agency. may understand that we are only successful because of the folks up and down the line in these respective institutions. the folks on the ground who are oftentimes putting their lives at risk for us. and oftentimes removed from washington and politics. lou: some members of the party expressing consternation about his election because of controversial statements on the israeli reluctance. among the reason for that concern and in some cases outright opposition. seven of the 12 republican members of the armed services committee expressing some opposition with at least three senators already saying they will vote no. senator david fisher saying, i will be a no-vote and on the floor. so
this comes after susan rice's nomination was arguably pulled. people believe that the president wanted susan rice to be secretary of state, and she was making a very public effort to court senators up on capitol hill for that nomination. she withdrew her name herself, but it was believed that the president wanted her to be that nominee, at first. she wasn't. and this nominee, chuc chuck hailing was under fire from the start. it doesn't seem that the president wanted to pull this potential nomination and is ready for this fight. he will likely have the votes, jon. and it may be a bumpy ride to get there, but he'll likely get there. and how much political capitol it takes to get there is really the question on both of these nominations. at the end of the day, the presidents usually get who they want to have in their cab tphefplt it's cabinet. it's a rare event when they don't. it does happen up here in washington but for the most part they can usually get the votes. jon: even more rare when a nominee is a former senator. how about john bren an also withdrew his name from consideration to be ci
is responsible to make decision about security? >> andrea: so it's not hillary clinton's or susan rice's or president obama. nobody's? >> kimberly: the ambassador. >> bob: i said she said it was her responsibility. >> dana: the point is -- >> bob: it might have been the responsibility of somebody in the embassy not telling the ambassador go to benghazi. it's unsafe. >> andrea: so now we blame foreign service agent agents ine embassy. >> bob: you blame everybody else. >> andrea: i have a hard time. buying what you -- >> bob: it was all her fault. >> andrea: i'm not picking up what you are putting down. she is the secretary of state. in charge of the diplomatic affairs. >> bob: how many embassies -- >> andrea: they ignored the warnings. >> bob: how many embassies -- >> andrea: a lot. that was in grave danger. coming up, the king of tabloid tv jerry springer says the show is a true picture of reality and more democratic than politics today. so does he have a point? or a perfect example of american culture in decline? that's ahead. on "the five." ♪ ♪ uhh, it's next month, actually... e
is? it's a joke. they lost their minds over susan rice. they're doing it again. >> here is more from senator lindsey graham. >> i'll have a hard time voting for anybody to be secretary of defense who believes that the surge was a foreign policy blunder. i'll have a hard time supporting anybody for secretary of defense who believes that the iranians are misunderstood, we should just negotiate with them, not sanction them. >> they're really focusing in on some of the things that he has said in the past, including a guy slur over a decade ago. do these things matter in confirmation? >> first of all, lindsey graham is treated with a lot of respect as some kind of national security expert. but it is quite possible to be pro-israeli and also not for a rush to war with iran. it is not incompatible. in people in israel think it's quite legitimate to not want to go to war with iran. why that has become a litmus test is not clear. chuck hagel, for being opposed to the surge, he voted for the war in iraq. so, you know, there is a lot of exaggeration going on here after all these years. after th
's not -- it us 23409 does not appear as serious as the would be nomination of susan rice to secretary of state, which john mccain and several other prominent republicans were saying, absolutely not, i'm a no vote. you heard that mccain was agnostic on this. i don't think there's quite the same level of an mouse that republicans had toward rice. and my read of it right now is what hagel needs to do is kind of make almost what you would call an apology, go around to a bunch of members, clarify prior remarks that he's made, make clear his position on key issues like israel and iran. he's probably going to have to get a little closer to the president's public position and allay some concerns about some things he said which i think at times involved not very smart choice of words. i think that ought to do it. i think, you know, senator schumer probably doesn't want to be a no to bring down a presidential nominee at this point. i think schumer needs to demonstrate he asked some tough questions. i think hagel can get pass it it if he has some good meetings and he essentially swanlgs some concerns her
on this? if you remember, jenna, the problems with susan rice when there was a lot of controversy when it was rumored she would be the next secretary of state? you had a bunch of women's groups that came out against republicans saying that they didn't want her to be secretary of state because she was a black and a woman. where are those groups now? if you notice, the president's nominee are all men, white men. not just men. white men. diversity is not just an gender. it is on race as well. jenna: what do you think they about stories like this and the pressure they can put on an administration of any party to select certain individuals for certain reasons and not necessarily because of qualifications? what kind of risk is that to the american public? >> it is a risk for the american public. and look, as a conservative i believe people should be chosen on ability, not on gender, not on race, not on sexual orientation or political stance but let's take labor secretary hilda solis. if the president wants a diverse latino you have javier becerra, democrat leadership. you have luis gutierrez
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)